tv FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX October 31, 2010 8:00am-9:00am EST
>> chris: i'm chris wallace, reporting from fox news election quarterbacks in new york. the latest on the midterms and the terror plot on "fox news sunday." just two days to go until america votes. is the republican wave about to sweep over the political landscape? we'll ask one of the party's leading voices, sarah palin. democrats fight to keep their majority in the house. we'll ask the man leading the charge. congressman chris van hollen. palin and van hollen, both "fox news sunday" exclusives. then, bill clinton puts the arm on a fellow democrat to drop out of the florida senate race. we'll ask our sunday panel
what's behind the move. and we'll hear the closing arguments from both parties "on the trail." all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again this time from new york city. we are in america's news headquarters where on tuesday night, fox news channel will bring you the results of the midterms. but before we get to politics, first an update on the terror plot involving explosive devices that were shipped by cargo planes and intended for the united states. on saturday, two women were taken in to custody in yemen. joining us now from washington is john brennan, president obama's top counterterrorism advisor. mr. brennan, start with the detention of those two women. do you believe that they are part of al-qaeda, and have there been any other arrests we haven't heard about? >> i think the yemenis and we are confident they delivered the packages to the ups and
fedex offices. so now there is an investigation ongoing. we're questioning the individuals and hope to learn more about the plot very soon. >> chris: do you believe they have links to al-qaeda, that al-qaeda was behind this plot? >> when i look at the information that we've received from the british authorities about the i.e.d.s and the construction of them and sophistication of them, it has hallmarks of the al-qaeda in arabian peninsula. and we know aqap has been vocal about threatening attacks and they've tried to attack the homeland. the packages were destined for the homeland. >> chris: apaq is al-qaeda in arabian peninsula. i want to ask about several stories out there and you can tell us if they're true or not. there is a report that the british, with a tip that there was a bomb on one of the cargo planes, searched the plane and they missed the bomb. only after the other bomb was found in dubai they did another search and found the
first bam, and that it was that sophisticated. is that true, sir? >> british identified the bomb. that was the first one that was discovered. as a result of that, they worked close with the authorities and so they were able to do additional tests and were able to find it. it was done in a very coordinated fashion. but what we need to do is make sure that we have the screening technologies and screens procedures that are going to be able to identify such packages early. >> chris: there is a report that there were as many as 15 bombs. is that true? are you confident that you have gotten all the bombs that have been sent out? >> only two have been found. that is the information that we had and we have been able to successfully locate and neutralize them. we cannot presume that there are none other out there, so we are looking at all the packages that originated in yemen. we have been able to identify all of them and we are you now putting them through very thorough screening and we
suspended the cargo shippings from the united states that originate in yemen. reports about 15 bombs out there, that's not something that i'm aware of. >> chris: there has also been reports that these bombs may have been components of a much bigger bomb. any reason to believe that's true? >> you can always put one bomb or a device with another. i'm relying on the british because they've done the analysis. according to the british and the prime minister cameron himself, these were self-contained devices, something that could have been detonated on the aircraft. prime minister said it and british believe it was design to detonate on the aircraft, though the terrorists wouldn't have known the location of the aircraft. i have didn't require additional components or require someone to go in and man rally press syringe or something else. this is something that could have been detonated en route to the united states or at the destination. >> chris: that's what i was
going to ask you. is it your belief these bombs were destined to arrive in the synagogues in chicago and be exploded there? or that the real idea here was to take out the airplanes? >> they were addressed to two locations in chicago that have been associated with synagogues. the names on those labels were fictitious, as far as who the recipients were going to be. again, talking with the british, it seems as though that these devices were designed at least to be capable to be detonated on the aircraft while they were en route to the united states. >> chris: is it your belief, as the president's top counterterrorism advisor that this plot is over, or do you and the president regard this plot as ongoing? >> every day, we are exceptionally vigilant and focussed on the threat that al-qaeda presents to us. whether it's al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula or al-qaeda exists in the pakistan, afghanistan region or other areas. we cannot presume that there
are other components to this plot that we have already destructed. what we have to do is continue to investigate this, see what else might be out there. are there other i.e.d.s out there? is this part of a bigger effort? al-qaeda has been evocal about the threats against us. there are individuals who are dangerous and the individual or individuals who constructed this i.e.d. is very, very dangerous. working with the yemeni officials to bring the individuals to justice one way or another. >> chris: so you regard this plot as ongoing, sir? >> i believe the threat is certainly ongoing. we're not going to rest until we find the people responsible for this and to find what other devices might be out there. we just need to stay on top of this and work it diligently. we cannot rest while al-qaeda is out there plotting and scheming to carry out murderous attacks. >> chris: do we have to do more about al-qaeda in yemen? they have been behind several attempts to attack the
homeland. >> we have stepped up our efforts with the yemeni authorities. i spoke to them yesterday and the day before. we're being more aggressive and this demonstrates we have to be as aggressive as possible, because they are looking to find vulnerabilities or opportunities to carry out the attacks. we need to find the individuals. we need to bridge them to justice, do it sooner rather than later and do it with our partners, intelligence, law enforcement, homeland officials in the united states working closely with the yemenis, saudis and the brits and others. full court press. we'll step it up now. >> chris: one last quick question if i may, sir. we have about 30 seconds left. a lot of us are getting a sense there is a lap or a gap in security we didn't realize that only a few packages on cargo planes are checked. the vast majority is not checked. is that a gap you have to do something about? >> we have a multi-layer defense. we consider all cargo packaging coming to the united states subject to
intense screening. what we try to do is based on the intelligence, based on the type of packages coming in, where they're coming from. we are able to zero in on some packages of grave concern. we will take stock of the experience and make adjustments if necessary and continue to rely on a whole host of capabilities, screening procedure, technique and technology. >> chris: mr. brennan, we have to leave it there. thank you for coming in today and bringing the latest on the terror threat. good luck, sir. >> thank you, chris. >> chris: now the midterms. even before voting ends, experts are predicting a republican takeover of the house, g.o.p. closing a big gap in the senate and many governor races up for grabs. for a look at where we stand two days out, we begin with one of the leading conservative voices this year, former vice president candidate, sarah palin. governor, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you so much. i'm thrilled. >> chris: do you think this is going to be a historic election? do you think this is going to
mark a real turning point for the country? >> i do. i think it will be a political earthquake and the message will have been sent to the left they blew it and americans are waking up and saying smaller, smarter government is the only way the country can get back on the right track. making sure we have candidates who believe in that mission. shrinking the federal government, allowing state right, individual right, private sector progress. >> chris: more specifically, what is the message you think the electorate on tuesday is going to send to president obama? >> they are going to say you blew it, president obama. we gave you two years to fulfill your promise of making sure that our economy starts roaring back to life again. instead, i believe things are getting worse. we have still this jobless recovery. we know that the stimulus, the nearly trillion dollars that were spent that ecreated more debt did not work. yet he talks about more bail-out and more stimulus. the path he has put us on is a pass toward insolvency. the message sent to the president is no more. no more business as usual. the last two years have not been good for our country.
>> chris: what is the message that voters, especially if we see a bump of your tea party candidates elected, what is the message the voters will send to the republican establishment in washington? >> no more business as usual, establishment politicians. you, too, those in the establishment have had opportunity to make sure that the government was going to rein itself in and let the private sector grow, thrive, prosper as it should. those in the establishment that perpetuated the problem to go along to get along, including some being wishy-washy on the obama-pelosi agenda. they'll say no more. the freshman class will come in with passion and turning government around to put it on the side of the people. >> chris: if republicans gain control of the house and in effect of the effective bloc of the senate, they have to govern. question: should they be willing to compromise some of their first principles they talk about on the campaign trail in order to get things
done? >> no. they should not compromise on principle. absolutely not. that has been part of the problem, those who decided to go along to get along and make the compromises, not when the results have been a woeful economy and not when the results have been a lessening of our national security. those things that are foremost on american voters' minds, we want to make sure that the fundamentals are there. the fundamentals, principles that allow the base of security and the economic prosperity for this nation. we have can't afford to compromise on principle, thinking we are going to reach those goals. >> chris: let me rephrase that. maybe the question shouldn't be are they going to compromise on principle. should they compromise on policy? give you an example. in england, conservative government announced new austerity package, spending cut and tax increases. 3-of-1 spending cuts over tax
increases to get both sides to buy into it. would you suggest something like that if that's what you need to address the national debt and fix entitlement? >> no, we don't have to compromise on that. the premise is false, that you have to increase taxes to balance the budget. the first thing they need to look at is the spending cult and the hiring freezes and the zero base budgeting. the principles and the practices, they haven't begun to incorporate yet to start balancing budget. it's a false premise there to believe we have to increase taxes on the american people to balance out the budgets when we haven't done the things that just make a lot of common sense first in cutting budgets. look at the laffer curve, the other studies that have shown increase revenue is not necessarily drived from increased taxes, because that is going to lessen productivity in this nation. >> chris: if you -- and i know you support extending all the bush tax cuts. >> i do. >> chris: that is $4 trillion according to the bean counters that will be added to the deficit.
you know, you can cut a lot of spending. you can't cut $4 trillion worth of spending. >> it's odd that people, they paint that picture, though, that the money is there and it would be cut out of our economy, that the money isn't there to start with, the $4 trillion. no, if we were to increase taxes, which is what will happen, because pelosi and reid skipped down before allowing congress to even take a vote on extending tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. if the tax cuts are going to expire, we're going to see increased tax on january 1, that's a disincentive for production and for industry, people getting out there and working in this country, for the job creators to be able to expand and hire more people. so, no, it's not a given that allowing the tax increases to come forth, that's not a guarantee that the economy gets on the right track. ridiculous premise to look at tax increases before looking
at anything else, including spending increase. the american people are saying we're taxed enough already. we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem in this country. >> chris: okay. you endorsed more than 50 candidates, a lot in competitive primaries on the ballot november 2. many of them are running strong races but i want to talk about two who some say are not. in the delaware senate race, your candidate christine o'donnell turned what looked like a sure republican pick-up to a likely loss. alaska senate race, your candidate joe miller is in freefall when it turned out he misused government computers and lied about it. let me finish my question. >> hurry up, then, i have a lot to say. >> chris: okay. haven't some of your tea party endorsees, candidates shown they're not ready for prime time. >> first, christine
o'donnell, when given a choice why would i have supported the liberal, the procap and tax, mike castle if given a choice. of course i support the conservative. >> chris: what if she loses? >> who is going to guarantee castle will win anyway? it's a blue state, liberal state. given the choice, yeah, give it the college try and allow the conservative in the race to have the message, the voice heard. that's what my endorsement allowed a little bit of a boost, at least to get some people pay attention to what she is saying. given a choice, i'm going to go with the common sense conservative in a race. as for joe miller, the thing that this fellow has had to put up with up against the g.o.p. machine and the democrats and liberal media in alaska, it's no wonder the numbers are tightening in that race. just last night it was revealed the rally i had for joe miller on thursday, it was revealed and we had the tape that proves it, that the cbs reporters, the affiliate
in alaska conspired to make up stories about joe miller. we have the tape, chris. i can't wait until it busts out all over the nation to show what it is, kind of what i put up with for two years now with the media, but what joe miller is faced with, someone lisa murkowski who feels so entitled to seat that she and her complicits in the media will do anything to stop at nothing. >> chris: wait a minute. you're saying -- you are saying the local reporters in alaska conspired with the murkowski campaign to put out false information about joe miller? >> i'm saying that we have it on tape, the cbs reporters of the affiliate in alaska are saying let's find a child molester in the crowd as supporter of joe miller, let's blast that. concoct a ron paul moment saying that chaos, joe miller got stuck.
that's sick. corrupt bastard. when it's nine times out of ten the liberal is the chosen one so we have a problem there with what joe miller has had to face. another thing, lisa murkowski and her hired gun got the conservative talk show host in alaska kicked off the air because they did not like the support he was articulating for joe miller. stuff like that is corrupt. it's frustrating. it's why americans are saying no more, enough is enough. we're going to turn this around and fight corruption in the media, we're going to fight -- >> chris: you told me to get on with it. i'm telling you to get on with it. >> go ahead. >> chris: 2012, i think it's fair to say the race for the g.o.p. presidential nomination starts november 3, the day after this election is over. how and when, how and when will you decide whether to run? >> i would decide, after discussing it with my family, and just checking out the lay of the land and seeing who else is interested in doing
it. i don't need to run for office. i know that i don't need a title. in fact, i love the freedom i have, that i can sit here and i can tell you anything i want to tell you and not have to worry so much about how it will affect my future political career or my relationship with senators or congressman. i'll say what i want to say. that's freeing. i love the position i'm in now. i would weigh that, the freedom i have now, against the constraints that you would have as a candidate. >> chris: you said the other day, if there is somebody else out there -- >> yeah. >> chris: so. is there anyone in the republican party you could say right now if he or she gets in, i'm out? >> there are many he or shes out there who have the time-tested trueful principles within them that they want to allow america to grow upon. i so respect -- >> chris: you want to name a couple? >> no, i don't want to name a couple. it just opens more doors to whatever. but there are a lot of folks out there, chris, if they were willing to run, willing to sacrifice and their
families having to be willing to sacrifice what they put up with as a candidate, i'll be their biggest supporters and root for them. >> chris: two questions. karl rove said the other day you did a great job as the vice presidential candidate in 2008 -- you know where i'm going with this. he added this, with all due candor, appearing on your own reality show on discovery channel -- he had that wrong -- i'm not sure how it helps me see you in the oval office. there are high standards that the american people have for the presidency and require certain level of gravitas. >> i agree with that, those standards have to be high for someone who would ever want to run for president. wasn't ronald reagan an actor? wasn't he in something? he was an actor. i'm not in a reality show. i have eight episodes documenting alaska resources, what we can contribute to the
rest of the u.s. to contribute it to the union. family comes along the ride because i am family. they come along to document the eight episodes for learning and discovery channel. karl is wrong right there calling it a reality show. >> chris: your series starts on the cable channel tlc november 14. here is a brief clip. >> let your foothold. you always wanted to be a rock climber, sarah. >> was it a rock climber, or a rock star? about halfway up the rock, i did not know if i was going to be able to finish the task. a couple more inches and i can have my knee on it. a little more. >> you're almost there, honey. >> oh, god. >> chris: cliff hanger, i don't want to know what happened, did you make it out alive or not? i'm going to tell you what i think, i'll be bill o'reilly.
you're having too much fun, you're making too much money, you're a big player in national hospital. you don't have 100 people like me chasing you around saying what do you read in the morning? i don't think you are going to run. >> the country is worth it, though, to make the sacrifices when we talk about making money today, having all the fun today, having all the freedom. if the country needed me -- i home not saying that the country does, and that the country would ever want to choose me over anyone else, but i would be willing to make the sacrifices if needbe for america. >> chris: thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> chris: always a pleasure. >> thank you for keeping your questions short. >> chris: i wish i could say the same for your answers, governor palin. all right. thank you so much for talking with us. we look forward to your analysis here on fox. >> can't wait. >> chris: tuesday night. keep your answers short. up next, the man in charge of democratic efforts to hold on to the house tells us if that is still possible.
the new healthcare law gives us powerful new tools to fight it.... to investigate it... prosecute it... and stop criminals. our senior medicare patrol volunteers... are teaching seniors across the country... ...to stop, spot, and report fraud. you can help. guard your medicare card. don't give out your card number over the phone. call to report any suspected fraud. we're cracking down on medicare fraud. let's make medicare stronger for all of us.
easier to book and more affordable. or, like priceline.com, you can dream it and do it. priceline.com lists on nasdaq, the world's most innovative can-do exchange. host: could switching to geico did the little piggy cry wee wee priwee all the way home?asdaq, piggy: weeeeeee, weeeeeee, weeeeeee, weeeee weeeeeeee.
congressman chris van hollen head of the democratic congressional campaign committee. congressman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> good to be with you, chris. >> chris: as i said, all the independent experts now say, quite frankly, that you democrats are going to lose the house. put them up on the screen. they are predicting a net loss of 48 to 60 seats with 39 turning over control to republicans. the rothenburg political report predicts a loss of 55 to 65 seats with the possibility of higher losses, 70. isn't holding the house a lost cause? >> no, it's not a lost cause. one thing the american people don't like is washington pundits telling them in advance what they are going to do. i think all the washington pundits will be surprised, just like many of them were surprised recently in a special election we had in pennsylvania, where everybody predicted the republican win didn't happen. we are seeing strong early votes, chris, for democrats, which means that this idea
that the democrats are not energized is just not true. then you've got large pools of undecided voters, voters that republicans and other pundits predicted would already decide to vote against the democratic incumbents, when, in fact, what they're doing is taking a close look at the republican candidates. recognizing that they are way off on the right extreme. many of them are the candidates that have been recruited and blessed by sarah palin. they're saying we don't want someone way to the right. we don't want to go to the days where special interest ruled washington. >> chris: congressman, are you willing to predict, say right now two days before that democrats are going to hold on to the house? >> i believe democrats are going to hold on to the house. the early vote indicates that and as well as that the undecided voters, all the pundits predicted will break 2-1 for republicans, it's not happening because they're doing what voters should do,
which is look where the republican candidates stand on issues and they don't like what they see. >> chris: congressman, an awful lot of polls indicate the opposite. a lot of the voting groups are breaking away from you. put a couple on the screen that were key pillars to the obama base. this 2008, women supported obama over mccain by 13 points. now according to a "new york times" poll they favor republicans by four. that is a swing of 17 points. in 2008, independents preferred obama by eight points and now they favor republicans by 15. that is a swing of 23 points. >> chris, the major difference between now and 1994, which is what a lot of pundits want to compare this to, voters when they're asked whether the republicans represent a viable governing alternative, they say no. it's clear why they say no. because they have lived under that republican alternative for eight years and they don't want to return to a set of policies that got this
country into a total mess. and they don't want to go back to the days when the big money, special interest ran the show in washington. >> chris: how do you explain, how do you explain that women who were voting for the democrats two years ago are now voting against them. independents, as i say, a swing of 23 points. how do you explain that, sir? >> we are going to know the answer to the question two days from now. why don't we let the american people answer the question. the data you are showing is national data. we are running in specific battleground congressional districts. in those congressional district, we see the early vote return that show the democrats are energized. we are seeing large numbers of undecided voters that the pundits predicted would have decided to vote against the democratic incumbents, taking a much closer look and they don't like what they see, because they don't want to go back to the days when the big money special interest ran the show in washington. the tens of millions of dollars that are flooding in from the interest groups that
have had the power reined in over the past 22 months reinforces the point we have been making, why go back to days when wall street ran the show? a lot of big oil companies had their way. but that's the kind of thing that is happening right now. >> chris: congressman van hollen, let's talk about money. the if you add up everything that's been spent by the outside committees, the party committees, according to the non-partisan center for responsive politics, democrats beat republicans $856 million to $677 million. democrats have not been out-spent in the election cycle. i want to put up another graphic if i may. if you look at the biggest spenders in this election cycle, it's ascme, public employees union that spent the most. chamber of commerce is second at $75 million. american cross roads, conservative group is $65 million. then two other unions, service employees, $44 million. the national education
association, $40 million. you're right, a lot of special interest money spent in this campaign, congressman van hollen, but a lot is spent for democrats. >> the issue is the secret money. the issue is the folks who apparently are so embarrassed or don't want their voters to know they're putting money in these races they seek to hide it. the important thing for american voters is the group on the left, center or right that they should be required to disclose to the voter who is paying for it. every republican except mike castle in the congress denied voters that opportunity to find out who is behind them. ascme isn't trying to pretend they're someone else. they're not hiding behind a front group. >> chris: one, if i may, congressman, one, they're a special interest as much as chamber of commerce is. union is a special interest. two, the fact is that in your disclose act, you were going to set a limit of $600. but the average annual dues
of the union is $377. so none of their annual dues would have had to go in and be disclosed under your legislation. >> actually, chris there was a slightly different threshold. but the idea was -- >> chris: over the annual dues, sir. >> if you want every union member to disclose the $300 that they're contributing to the union, i think that's fine. the big issue here, most voters would agree, not that a working person contributing $300, it's the people spending millions of dollars of secret money. there is no doubt that ascme has an agenda. you have policemen, firefighters and other public employees and they want to represent their rights. let's look at who is on the other side of the equation. you have a lot of big wall street firms -- >> chris: does this mean the people who hire -- i mean, you know, you can spin this any way you want but a lot of people would say the big business, people that drive the economic engine of this country are not villains and
as virtuous as those working in unions. >> of course, they're not villains. >> chris: a lot of people think they're being painted as villians. >> that's not true. multi-national corporations, when we eliminate the sub suddies that pay -- subsidiaries that award jobs to be shipped overseas they didn't like that. didn't like the power reined in. oil companies don't want to be held account table. joe barton apologized to b.p. when the president wanted to hold them accountable. then you have banks that used to get a big cut out of the -- >> chris: congressman, i don't mean to interrupt you, but i have only a minute left and i want to ask one more question. you are asking if everything is great. everybody seems to think, maybe we're wrong, that it will be a good night for republicans and bad night for democrats. do you not see any message from voters of the dissatisfaction with the president and what you democrats and control of
congress have done in the last two years? >> i'm not acting as if everything is great. i am saying we know the economy is slow in terms of the recovery. we also know that the voters don't want to return to policies that got us in this mess. the night before the president was sworn in, we were losing 700,000 jobs every month in the country. why we haven't seen the recovery to the extent we want, we don't want to go to the policies that empower the special interest. special interest have had the power reined in, over the past 22 months. they're fighting back. that is what is happening. that's why you see a large pool of undecided voters. >> chris: congressman van hollen? >> yes? >> chris: excuse me. we're out of time. thank you for coming on and answering the questions. let me say, i'll say it now. if you are right, a lot of the so-called experts will have plenty of egg on their faces wednesday morning. >> you are right about that
and they've been proven wrong before, as you know, chris. >> chris: absolutely. we'll know what to eat for breakfast. >> thank you. >> chris: thank you very much. good to talk to you, as always, congressman. coming up, our sunday regulars made the big trip to new york. do they see a g.o.p. sweep? how are the next two years going to be different? we'll get some answers when we come right back. i was living on welfare and supporting a family of four. after i got the job at walmart, things started changing immediately. then i wrote a letter to the food stamp office. "thank you very much, i don't need your help any more." you know now, i can actually say i bought my home. i knew that the more i dedicated... the harder i worked, the more it was going to benefit my family. this my son, mario and he now works at walmart. i believe mario is following in my footsteps. my name is noemi, and i work at walmart. ♪ [ man ] if it was simply about money, every bank loan would be a guarantee of success.
you don't have much choice. you need to elect kendrick meek. thank you, god bless you. [ applause ] >> chris: well, leave it to bill clinton at the same moment that he was telling florida voters they had to elect kendrick meek to the u.s. senate, behind the scenes he was pushing meek to quit and clear the way for governor charlie crist. time for the sunday group. brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. contributors mara liasson of national public radio. bill kristol of "the weekly standard." fox news contributor, juan williams. well, brit, i thought i'd seen everything in politics, but here we have a former president of the united states pushing an african-american democratic congressman to get out of the race to clear the way for a guy who was a republican about 20 minutes ago. what does that tell you, first about politics, and second about how willing
democrats are they will lose control of the senate? >> it tells you the democrats are worried about the limitless flexibility of the former republican charlie crist turned independent, who having said at one time not long ago he was a reagan republican and he is now prepared to get in the senate and caucus with the democrats if they support him and can get meek out of the race. it's been a remarkable year. look, this is a year when the former governor of alaska came on a sunday program, i can't remember which one, and referred to people as corrupt bastards. >> chris: imagine! >> imagine. >> chris: mara is this a rogue operation by bill clinton or are the white house's fingerprints on this? >> no, he has played this role before, and tried to clear the field for democrats. >> chris: usually in the primary, not in the middle of the election. >> this is an unusual situation. no one worked harder for kendrick meek than bill clinton. this wasn't a plot all along
to pull the rug out from under him. the democrats wanted to see if meek could close the gap. he couldn't. they are facing a situation meek is trading badly. wide-spread feeling, he doesn't have a prayer to win. the only way to block rubio in the democratic analysis was throw support to crist. there was a moment early on if meek had been defeated by millionaire jeff greene, that might have changed things but that didn't happen. the big question now is what is the fall-out from the story, where the african-american voters will be angry and will they stay home and urge the prospect of alex sink, who is locked in a tight race with scott, or will they feel free to vote for griffin. >> chris: we have been talking about the republican wave for a month, iceberg headed to the titanic. all of us thought something will change, it always does.
the wave keeps getting bigger and bigger. now we're two days away and it's bigger than ever. >> it is. they want change with washington and they will get it. on part of the meek story, if you are a democrat around the country, meek is a sitting congressman who won the gubernatorial nomination in florida, against a self-financer who spent millions of dollars. he is an impressive young guy, he has a future in politics, even if he doesn't win this year. for bill clinton with the blessing of the white house to force him out of the race one week out for the opportunistic governor of florida, been a republican, embarrassed him, and he is going to lose anyway, even if meek got out of the race, and it's demoralizing for democrats. for conservatives, seeing rubio as part of the party. two years ago, charlie crist was heralded by the
conservative establishment. everyone fought for his endorsement. replacement of charlie crist by marco rubio is for me heartening about the future of the party. >> chris: what do you make of the remarkable numbers that understandably chris van hollen challenged in the "new york times" poll that indicate since 2008 women swung away from democrats by 17 points. and independents by 23 points. what do you make of that? >> bad news for democrats. that is the story of the election. i think women in specific. the idea that i think it was said the first time in the history of the poll that women would favor republicans over democrats in the house. >> chris: gender gap in reverse. >> unbelievable. it's telling about the time. those who are the soccer mom, security moms after 9/11, are now suddenly, you know what? mortgage moms. they worry about the economy, about their kids getting a job and about their husband holding a job. let me say i think your premise is wrong. i don't think that in fact we are looking at an iceberg
headed toward us tuesday night. i think van hollen is closer to the truth. i think the republican energy, which is about turn-out, really crested earlier. what you see now is more democrats getting engaged. you are going to possibly republicans take control of the house. i don't think the senate is in play anymore. i think it will be much narrower. talk about 70, 80, 90 seats. >> the republicans -- >> chris: let's say it's 55. >> even so, it will be narrow. >> chris: you think 55 would be the most in half a century? >> i'm saying to you it would be narrow. that's a very narrow -- they need 39. >> narrow? >> what's narrow about it? >> 55 seats. i will buy you lunch if it's 55 or low. it will be 65, or 70. >> how can the senate not be in play? >> what about california? >> i'll buy you a nicer lunch if patty murray wins in
newspapers agree: frank kratovil is a vastly better choice than andy harris. kratovil is the only candidate who will actually try to fix what we're all angry about. andy harris' hometown paper says he's too extreme and has accomplished nothing. washington is overrun by the left and the right. but like you, i'm more interested in creating jobs, cutting the debt and getting tough on illegal immigration. i'm frank kratovil and i approve this messaged because as one of the 10 most independent members of congress, i'm in the middle with you.
>> chris: we're back now at america's news headquarters with our sunday group. when we talk about -- we're going to pick up on what you were talking about, juan -- possible republican gains in the house tuesday, we need to put this in historical perspective. look at this. when newt gingrich and the republicans scored their big victory in 1994, they picked up 52 seats. when reagan took a beating in his first term, democrats gained 26. the business number out there is 1948, when harry truman and democrats picked up 75 seats. so brit, when experts talk about and you've got very respected people like stu rothenberg and charlie cook talking about right now 55 seats, we're in historic territory. >> when they say that, they say 55 and it could go higher. not saying 55 and it might be lower. those are really fairly conservative estimates. the important thing about this, the practical effect of republican control of the house will be any major new
obama initiatives will be stopped, stalled. they won't be able to pass it. the political effect is more interesting, and that's really not about the republicans so much than it is about how the democrats and the white house and on capitol hill react to the message from the eelectorate. at the moment, that will depend how the margin goes. if it's 55 they may say as juan did, it's close. we had a bad economy. you will lose a lot of seats. stuff happens. we are going to fight on as much as before. if it's 65, 70, 75, it seems to me and they try that, they will be laughed out of town. it will be unthinkable. the margin may tell us a lot about how the losers respond. >> well, i think that the margin would have to be much slimmer than 55 for them to be able to say we're just going to soldier on. i think that losing the house by a historic number -- 55 is a historic number. if it beats 52, which was the
last republican takeover. i think that what president obama says on wednesday and thursday, and again what he says in the state of the union will be two of the most important moments in his presidency. he has to explain to the country what he thinks happened, how he was responsible or not. what it means going forward. this is important for the future of the presidency. >> chris: what do you think? you're at the white house all the time, mara. do they think just well, the economy took longer or do they understand we really have lost women, independents, lost our base. >> they understand what is happening. if the employment rate was at 7%, everything would be different. most important fact. >> 7%, completely different? >> well, it would have been a lot different. then the prediction would have been true that the stimulus would have gotten it down. they are considering a two-track strategy, not unlike bill clinton where you
say certain things, i am going to fight to defend, healthcare reform and financial reform. other things like the deficit and education and energy, and some other issues, i can compromise. i think they are considering that. >> bill, i mean, there is a message, again assuming that everything we think will happen does happen. there is a message to the g.o.p. establishment; particularly, if you see a bunch of the tea party candidates like marco rubio elected. and they are going to be feeling their oats if they're elected. what is the message and the challenge to republicans in washington? >> it's a huge challenge. conservatives elected don't want to be in the business of going back to the previous republican party. spent too much and compromise too much. i rather agree with that. on the other hand, if you have majority in the house and the senate, you are partly responsible for improving the situation in the country. extend the current tax rate, work with the president on the foreign policy where they agree with him. they can't simply be in the
position to say we'll stop everything bad and then defeat him in 2012. they need to try to improve people's lives here and now. insist on the tax rates right away. another way is take on the regulatory acts to the obama presidency. >> chris: that's not a compromise. you talk about them pursuing the agenda. i asked governor palin that and she looked at me like i was crazy. >> there is a budget with some domestic spending restraint and republicans may want to go further. there will be a budget in the united states on october 1, 2011. the budget, republicans may not go as far as they want to go. they need to be strong and militant advancing their cause but they need to be able to say two years from now, we stood by the principles and we improved things for the americans out there. they gave us majority and we did good. >> chris: juan? >> militant? you want to be militant? governing is about compromise. the republicans will start to feel the fury and the force
of the tea party movement. if they, in fact, gain control of the house, because the establishment republicans are not comfortable with the tea party republicans. tea party republicans have to say here is how we'd govern and be effective. it will be a challenge. the key here as we look to the wave election as you describe it, understand that you though what? americans want government that works. they want things done. so when it comes to areas of compromise, they are going to hold republicans responsible. they don't want extremists like christine o'donnell. in fact, that's the only democratic message that's worked in the election. some of these republican candidates are a little over the top. >> when is the last time we saw the house taken over from the party that didn't hold it? 2006. did you notice, juan, things got better between 2006 and 2008? they didn't get better. obviously they got worse. that's what elected barack obama. were house democrats held
accountable in any way for that in the 2008 election? absolutely not! >> well, that is a wonderful argument. we should elect people and not hold them accountable? >> i'm not saying we should. i'm saying it happened. the talk of republicans holding a house in congress to be held to parallel ability with the democrats and president, isn't how things work. it doesn't happen that way. >> it seems to me you know what? there is expectations attached to saying throw out the bums, throw out the incumbent. the economy is terrible. people want real change. that's what barack obama is being held accountable for. you're saying don't hold house republicans responsible. >> i'm not urging that. i'm talking about the reality of how things actually work. the only time i can recall when a congressional leader having newly gotten his party, his party newly got control can of one house was treated to accountability was newt gingrich in 1994. that was such an historic earthquake and bill clinton appeared to be so weakened
that gingrich -- >> they do. >> we'll see. what i'm saying remember, they held on to power for what? 12 yearses. and, you know, through good times and bad. so i wouldn't get to far out on the limb about how tough it will be in two years. >> nobody is going to get too far out on a limb, because the time clock says we're going to cut it off. thank you, panel. see you next week. done forget to check out -- don't forget to check out panel plus where the group picks up with the discussion on our website, foxnewssunday.com. we'll all get out on a limb there. we'll post the video before noon eastern time. up next, it's down to the wire. "on the trail." [ male announcer ] you can dream of protecting networks
from virtually any security threat. or, like fortinet, you can dream it and do it. fortinet lists on nasdaq, the world's most innovative can-do exchange. imagination and reality have merged. because of one word, a new generation-- a fifth generation-- of fighter aircraft has been born. because of one word, america's air dominance for the next forty years is assured. that one word...
is how. >> chris: it's come down to the final two days. candidates are working for every last vote to, while the big names from both parties crisscross the country and make their closing arguments. here is a taste of the home stretch "on the trail." ♪ ♪ >> hello, rhode island! >> vote for me, pray for me,
god bless. >> the only way we can get this car out of the ditch, moving on the right track is to change the way that business is done in washington. >> we don't mind the republicans joining us. they can come along for the ride but they have to sit in the back. [ chanting ] >> it will be phone calls for votes, from now until tuesday. [ applause ] >> i love kendrick meek. i'd be here for him if i was the only vote he had in the entire country. >> he didn't ask me to get out. i didn't tell him i was going to get out. we was just talking about the race in general. >> the conversations did take place. >> ring a doorbell. >> yes. >> walk the precinct. >> in fairness, larry summers did a heck of a job trying to figure out how to -- >> you don't want to use that phrase, dude. [ laughter [ laughter ] >> pun intended.
>> fire pelosi! fire pelosi! >> in the last four days i need you to knock on doors and make phone calls and talk to your neighbors and vote. >> your government is out of control. do you have to accept it? >> no! >> do you have to take it? >> no! >> hell no, you don't! >> chris: to see how it all turns out watch fox news tuesday night for the time results and the best analysis of what it all means for you. on your local fox television station. our news and business channels, radio and online. that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." captioned by closed captioning services, inc